Mary Wilson
Well-known member
Published 10 June 2023
DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36681-5
Zhou, Y., Shi, W., Wen, Y. et al.
Abstract
The application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has gradually been carried out by clinical practitioner. However, few studies have compared it with blood cultures in patients suffering from suspected bloodstream infections. The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of pathogenic microorganisms by these two assays in patients with suspected bloodstream infection. We retrospectively studied patients with fever, chills, antibiotic use for more than 3 days, suspected bloodstream infection, and admission to the emergency department of Ruijin Hospital from January 2020 to June 2022. All patients had blood drawn on the same day for blood mNGS and blood cultures. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected on the day blood was drawn. The detection of pathogenic microorganisms by the two methods was compared. Risk factors and in-hospital mortality in patients with bloodstream infections were analysed separately for these two assays. In all 99 patients, the pathogenic microorganisms detection rate in blood mNGS was significantly higher than that in blood culture. Blood mNGS was consistent with blood culture in only 12.00% of all positive bacterial and fungal test results. The level of CRP is related to bacteraemia, fungaemia and viraemia detected by blood mNGS. No clear risk factors could be found in patients with a positive blood culture. In critically ill patients, both tests failed to improve patient outcomes. In patients with suspected bloodstream infection, mNGS is not yet a complete replacement for blood cultures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36681-5#citeas
DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36681-5
Zhou, Y., Shi, W., Wen, Y. et al.
Abstract
The application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has gradually been carried out by clinical practitioner. However, few studies have compared it with blood cultures in patients suffering from suspected bloodstream infections. The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of pathogenic microorganisms by these two assays in patients with suspected bloodstream infection. We retrospectively studied patients with fever, chills, antibiotic use for more than 3 days, suspected bloodstream infection, and admission to the emergency department of Ruijin Hospital from January 2020 to June 2022. All patients had blood drawn on the same day for blood mNGS and blood cultures. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected on the day blood was drawn. The detection of pathogenic microorganisms by the two methods was compared. Risk factors and in-hospital mortality in patients with bloodstream infections were analysed separately for these two assays. In all 99 patients, the pathogenic microorganisms detection rate in blood mNGS was significantly higher than that in blood culture. Blood mNGS was consistent with blood culture in only 12.00% of all positive bacterial and fungal test results. The level of CRP is related to bacteraemia, fungaemia and viraemia detected by blood mNGS. No clear risk factors could be found in patients with a positive blood culture. In critically ill patients, both tests failed to improve patient outcomes. In patients with suspected bloodstream infection, mNGS is not yet a complete replacement for blood cultures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36681-5#citeas